2 ms·

I’d argue that the multiplicity of different programming languages and programming language paradigms suggests there likely isn't a teleological trajectory towa

I’d argue that the multiplicity of different programming languages and programming language paradigms suggests there likely isn't a teleological trajectory towards some single standard for programming. Part of this is because many systems are evolving, because business needs have human inputs and are not always "logical." At the edges where this human interaction happens, we expand the domain of programming to that of human psychology. There definitely are empirical claims we can make human-computer interfaces, but it begins to get a bit messy. To be clear, I am personally interested in becoming more rigorous about empirically justifying claims I make about the code I write. But I’m also interested in code because many of the problems it attempts to solve map the very complexity of the real world. In many ways, abstraction is a properly philosophical exercise, and I think it’s impossible to separate a pure engineering discipline from this broader context. Programming is multi-disciplinary, and I think that’s a strength.

unimployed 7y ago
Physical constraints are more restrictive than information constraints. Physical constraints keep physical engineering from fragmenting into thousands of different but similar frameworks because the physical constraints rarely allow more than a few solutions to be competitive as best solutions. In information, the bounds/constraints are something more of a constructed popularity contest who the largest players are (Google, Amazon, Microsoft, Facebook, Apple, etc.) which carries as much or more weight than rigorously empirical comparisons.
kd0amg 7y ago
I’d argue that the multiplicity of different programming languages and programming language paradigms suggests there likely isn't a teleological trajectory towards some single standard for programming. We also have a multiplicity of building materials, tools, fabrication processes, etc. What's the standard way to make a steel object? Do you cast, forge, stamp, mill, sinter, roll, weld? I would expect engineering as a discipline to have more solid arguments for choosing which (combination) of those processes to use for a particular task than what is typically thrown around in discussions about choosing a programming language or paradigm.

unimployed 7y ago

Physical constraints are more restrictive than information constraints. Physical constraints keep physical engineering from fragmenting into thousands of different but similar frameworks because the physical constraints rarely allow more than a few solutions to be competitive as best solutions. In information, the bounds/constraints are something more of a constructed popularity contest who the largest players are (Google, Amazon, Microsoft, Facebook, Apple, etc.) which carries as much or more weight than rigorously empirical comparisons.

kd0amg 7y ago

I’d argue that the multiplicity of different programming languages and programming language paradigms suggests there likely isn't a teleological trajectory towards some single standard for programming. We also have a multiplicity of building materials, tools, fabrication processes, etc. What's the standard way to make a steel object? Do you cast, forge, stamp, mill, sinter, roll, weld? I would expect engineering as a discipline to have more solid arguments for choosing which (combination) of those processes to use for a particular task than what is typically thrown around in discussions about choosing a programming language or paradigm.